Re: [arch-haskell] Layout of ABS tree for Haskell packages?

Isaac Dupree wrote:

On 10/21/10 01:39, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

On 20/10/10 15:56, Rémy Oudompheng wrote:

...

On 2010/10/20 Xyne wrote:

...

Is there a reason that everyone seems to send their replies to individual posters and only CC to the list?

The mailing-list is missing an automatic "Reply-To" header that usually exists on other mailing-lists. It makes things difficult when posting with improper mail clients like GMail.

I'll see if I can't fix this during the day.

Please don't. Nearly no technical mailing-list sets Reply-To, and in particular neither the Arch lists nor the Haskell lists do.*

I don't know about the Haskell lists, but the Arch lists that I follow use Reply-To Headers and none of them appear to suffer any disadvantages from using them: aur-dev: Reply-To: "Arch User Repository \(AUR\) Development" aur-general: Reply-To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository \(AUR\)" pacman-dev: Reply-To: Discussion list for pacman development

If it's really impossible to use mailing-lists with GMail (I don't know, I don't use GMail) then I guess you should find another client. Some clients have a "Reply To List" specifically, and for those that don't, "Reply To All" or equivalent is usually acceptable enough (are there any clients that don't have this??) (it produces the effect Xyne notes of "Is there a reason that everyone seems to send their replies to individual posters and only CC to the list?", but this works out acceptably in practice because To and CC have the same effect - emails go there -, and because the mailing-list defaults not to send extra copies to people who are already To/CC'ed)

It doesn't "work out in practice" for me. I filter my messages into different directories for each mailing list and having one that doesn't work the same as the others is irksome. "To" and "CC" have the "same effect" insofar as the messages arrive but the rest is not the same. I think all posts to a list discussion should go directly to the list without CC'ing others the same message. Replying directly to someone else and CC'ing to the list is like replying to one person in a conversation while looking directly at another. Sure, he can hear you, but you're not directing your reply to the right person and it's somewhat rude. Given, this may be a client issue and in general I think people should fix "broken" software rather than expect others to find a workaround for them, but if a single extra header resolves the issue and is commonly employed on related lists then I don't see the problem. Furthermore, arguing that each recipient should implement a manual workaround each time a message is sent instead of a simpler global workaround on the list doesn't make sense. Neither fixes the problem at the source but one is far simpler than the other.

* the old canonical arguments about Reply-To munging pro and con that I'd cite seem to have broken websites now, requiring archive.org usage, but here's an updated one: http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

They were probably taken down by pedantic overload. :P